|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 30, 2022 17:19:29 GMT
Viewing pornography is not a 'sin'. Nor is the experiencing of basic sexual drives, or the expression of them in forms outside of the 'married, 2.5 kids' paradigm. It's the Church's insane insistence on this and only this as just barely acceptable ("better to marry than to burn"--which means, as Paul uttered it, to burn with 'lust'--an abiding obsession with him-- not to burn in hell, as it's generally interpreted) that begets a goodly part of the madness to begin with. Yes it is. Porn, According To The Catechism Of The Catholic Church
Have you ever heard of Christopher West and/or The Theology of the Body, amyghost ? You should look him up. Very interesting stuff, & he explains Theology of the Body in a very good way. I've read a bit of his work, and although I think he's a good and lucid thinker, I simply cannot agree with the notion of viewing pornographic material as a 'sin'. Not to mention that a good bit of some of the most important art in history--literary, plastic, and performance--has been condemned by our good friends in the See as 'pornographic', so precisely who gets to define and apply that label? Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Once again, it's the obsessive insistence on the 'conjugal act' that seems to be the real bete noir here, as though human sexuality expressed through any other channels is the devil's workshop. I don't buy that, and many others don't either. And I personally find gravely offensive the notion that 'civil authorities' should regulate or outright ban material that deals in individual personal fantasy. That's thought-policing, something I have a true disdain for, and should not be within the purview of any religious body to act upon. Civil authority denotes civil liberty, and regardless of what the pontiff and his followers think, those liberties should not be impinged on by any particular religious sect, but only by secular community consensus--and even then, only after a very careful examination of what, if any, actual harm or danger is presented, not simply the ruffling of particular prudish feathers in a particular group.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 30, 2022 18:43:29 GMT
I can't imagine anyone not arguing in favor of that I'm not sure. Obviously having an affair is a bad thing, but at least it involves a consenting party. I'm still dubious about how much porn performers can be said to be really consenting, especially when we know nothing about their economic situation. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Nov 30, 2022 20:04:39 GMT
I've read a bit of his work, anLd although I think he's a good and lucid thinker, I simply cannot agree with the notion of viewing pornographic material as a 'sin'. Not to mention that a good bit of some of the most important art in history--literary, plastic, and performance--has been condemned by our good friends in the See as 'pornographic', so precisely who gets to define and apply that label? Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Once again, it's the obsessive insistence on the 'conjugal act' that seems to be the real bete noir here, as though human sexuality expressed through any other channels is the devil's workshop. I don't buy that, and many others don't either. And I personally find gravely offensive the notion that 'civil authorities' should regulate or outright ban material that deals in individual personal fantasy. That's thought-policing, something I have a true disdain for, and should not be within the purview of any religious body to act upon. Civil authority denotes civil liberty, and regardless of what the pontiff and his followers think, those liberties should not be impinged on by any particular religious sect, but only by secular community consensus--and even then, only after a very careful examination of what, if any, actual harm or danger is presented, not simply the ruffling of particular prudish feathers in a particular group. The civil authorities, yes. You would be right about that. Religious authorities, on the other hand, have to teach what is right or wrong SPIRITUALLY, if not LEGALLY. In the case of child pornography, then yes, the civil authorities DEFINITELY have to prevent the production of it, & as The Lost One noted, we do not know economic situation of the actors/actresses in the particular porn (even when they are adults), or anything else about them. Yes, it is possible that these people freely do the porn. It is also possible that they are in some kind of vulnerable position & are being forced into these smutty films, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 30, 2022 21:47:46 GMT
I've read a bit of his work, anLd although I think he's a good and lucid thinker, I simply cannot agree with the notion of viewing pornographic material as a 'sin'. Not to mention that a good bit of some of the most important art in history--literary, plastic, and performance--has been condemned by our good friends in the See as 'pornographic', so precisely who gets to define and apply that label? Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Once again, it's the obsessive insistence on the 'conjugal act' that seems to be the real bete noir here, as though human sexuality expressed through any other channels is the devil's workshop. I don't buy that, and many others don't either. And I personally find gravely offensive the notion that 'civil authorities' should regulate or outright ban material that deals in individual personal fantasy. That's thought-policing, something I have a true disdain for, and should not be within the purview of any religious body to act upon. Civil authority denotes civil liberty, and regardless of what the pontiff and his followers think, those liberties should not be impinged on by any particular religious sect, but only by secular community consensus--and even then, only after a very careful examination of what, if any, actual harm or danger is presented, not simply the ruffling of particular prudish feathers in a particular group. The civil authorities, yes. You would be right about that. Religious authorities, on the other hand, have to teach what is right or wrong SPIRITUALLY, if not LEGALLY. In the case of child pornography, then yes, the civil authorities DEFINITELY have to prevent the production of it, & as The Lost One noted, we do not know economic situation of the actors/actresses in the particular porn (even when they are adults), or anything else about them. Yes, it is possible that these people freely do the porn. It is also possible that they are in some kind of vulnerable position & are being forced into these smutty films, etc. I can agree with the need to prevent, as much as possible, the exploitation of unwilling parties in the production of pornography. That said, it has no bearing on the right of the individual to read or view so-called pornographic material. This is the individual's choice and no self-constituted 'moral' authority (and quite frankly, I must here state that in my opinion, the RCC is uniquely unfit to claim moral authority in much of any sphere, given its worldly history and antecedents) has the right to intervene in that. If an individual chooses to surrender his freedom of choice to such an entity, fine. But beyond that, I cede absolutely no right to the RCC or any other religious body to impose those rulings on the outer secular society.
|
|
